okay, i get you don't want to call the smallest unit "bitcoins." but hear me out – it’s actually more accurate to do so, and aligns with how bitcoin actually works. the whitepaper defines a bitcoin as a chain of signatures – a complete, indivisible coin. everything builds from there. bip 177 just formalizes what’s technically true: we’re always dealing with whole units at the protocol level. what we used to call "one bitcoin" was just a convenient denomination. now, that's 100 million bitcoins – reflecting the true base unit. it's not about changing what you have, it’s about accurately naming what it is. think of it like this: the system doesn’t work with fractions. it works with complete chains of signatures. calling the smallest unit something other than a bitcoin subtly implies it’s a fraction – which it isn’t, it’s a whole coin, just a very small one. it’s about being technically precise with the foundational element of the system, staying closer to the original design. #Bitcoinisbitcoin

Uma moeda precisa ser o mais divisível possível, e suas subunidades precisam de nomes distintos para não gerar confusão. Por exemplo, não dá pra chamar a menor unidade do Real brasileiro de real, pois isso causaria confusão, por isso recebe o nome de centavos. A mesma coisa deveria se aplicar ao Bitcoin. Dito isso, mesmo que formalizado, se o senso comum disser que satoshi é o melhor nome para a menor unidade do Bitcoin, então assim será.